NY Gov's Tax and Spend Shocker Adds 137 Hikes While Increasing Budget to $121B

[Hoot Gibson]

This is what liberals do and why they should never be put in charge of government. Note the proposed 18 percent tax on non-diet sodas. Those of you who think taxing soft drinks is wrong but still support skyrocketing cigarette taxes - shame on you.

 

If you cannot find a proposed tax or fee hike in Paterson's long list of revenue enhancements to hate, then you deserve the fleecing that awaits you. Need a haircut? That will cost you an extra 4 percent under the NY plan.

 

This may just be a ploy to get in on the federal bailout action but either way it illustrates how little liberals understand about our economy and individual liberty. The power to tax is the power to destroy and liberals are on the attack.

 

GOV'S TAX & SPEND SHOCKER

 

ADDS 137 HIKES WHILE INCREASING BUDGET TO $121B

 

ALBANY - Gov. Paterson yesterday socked New Yorkers with a mind-boggling 137 proposed new and hiked taxes on everything from beer to cab rides to iTunes downloads and movie tickets.

The doomsday, $121.1 billion plan represents the biggest tax hike in state history and slashes services across the board - while still increasing spending by $1.4 billion.

[Hoot Gibson]

So does everybody believe that an 18% tax on soft drinks is okay? Does everybody but me drink sugar-free drinks?

[rockmom]

So does everybody believe that an 18% tax on soft drinks is okay? Does everybody but me drink sugar-free drinks?

 

 

I don't drink sugar-free drinks.

 

I haven't made it through the whole article yet. But I guess I have a neutral feeling on this.

 

I do think think that it's ridiculous to tax non-diet drinks, though.

[ladiesbballcoach]

So does everybody believe that an 18% tax on soft drinks is okay? Does everybody but me drink sugar-free drinks?

 

This would be a good time to take this thread another direction.

 

I have no problem with taxing those things that cause additional costs for a government.

 

Fast food that is unhealthy, tax the snot out of it. People still want a triple Whopper, that is fine, just offset the cost that a society constantly eating such monstrosities is going to cost the government.

 

Put a tax on ho-ho's and the like. No problem with an 18% tax on soft drinks.

 

Tax alcohol and cigarettes. I have no problem with it.

 

Adults can still choose to do it but their poor choices can be at least partially offset by the tax revenue that can be raised by it.

 

I have no problem in taxing the luxuries in life.

 

THe Basic necessities, no taxes on at all. Everyone should be given the opportunity to have what they need to survive at the lowest cost possible. Luxuries, you can tax.

[rockmom]

I have a problem with artificial sweetners. This probably won't shock anyone, but I think artificial sweetners are worse for you than sugar.

 

And let's take sodas...the sugar in a regular soda is not the only "killer".

 

Why tax a non-diet soda higher than a diet soda? Both are bad for you.

 

And what a nightmare for retailers! So, you carry Lipton Bottled Iced Teas. You have one tax rate due on unsweetened or artificially sweetened, labled diet, versions, another on sweetened with sugar versions.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I have a problem with artificial sweetners. This probably won't shock anyone, but I think artificial sweetners are worse for you than sugar.

 

And let's take sodas...the sugar in a regular soda is not the only "killer".

 

Why tax a non-diet soda higher than a diet soda? Both are bad for you.

 

And what a nightmare for retailers! So, you carry Lipton Bottled Iced Teas. You have one tax rate due on unsweetened or artificially sweetened, labled diet, versions, another on sweetened with sugar versions.

 

With computers that the cashier rings in a code number is that really a problem? When you put it in the system, you type in a code on how to tax it.

 

You feel that way with Splenda that comes from sugar?

[Hoot Gibson]

This would be a good time to take this thread another direction.

 

I have no problem with taxing those things that cause additional costs for a government.

 

Fast food that is unhealthy, tax the snot out of it. People still want a triple Whopper, that is fine, just offset the cost that a society constantly eating such monstrosities is going to cost the government.

 

Put a tax on ho-ho's and the like. No problem with an 18% tax on soft drinks.

 

Tax alcohol and cigarettes. I have no problem with it.

 

Adults can still choose to do it but their poor choices can be at least partially offset by the tax revenue that can be raised by it.

 

I have no problem in taxing the luxuries in life.

 

THe Basic necessities, no taxes on at all. Everyone should be given the opportunity to have what they need to survive at the lowest cost possible. Luxuries, you can tax.

No matter how well intended, taxes take money out of our economy and lower our standard of living. The production of luxuries creates jobs just the same that the production of life's essentials does. Our government has an insatiable appetite for the taxes that allow incumbents to remain incumbents by legally purchasing votes. The more we feed it, the hungrier it gets, and eventually our exploding bureaucracy will crush our way of life.

[rockmom]

Of those mentioned in the article (haven't gotten through the budget yet)

 

I don't have a problem with:

 

Taxing taxi fares and limos, etc.

Taxing tickets to entertainment events.

 

I don't understand AT ALL the tax on clothing and shoes under $500...why not those over $500?

 

I'm not "up" on New York life...do they not have a state sales tax?

[Hoot Gibson]

I have a problem with artificial sweetners. This probably won't shock anyone, but I think artificial sweetners are worse for you than sugar.

 

And let's take sodas...the sugar in a regular soda is not the only "killer".

 

Why tax a non-diet soda higher than a diet soda? Both are bad for you.

 

And what a nightmare for retailers! So, you carry Lipton Bottled Iced Teas. You have one tax rate due on unsweetened or artificially sweetened, labled diet, versions, another on sweetened with sugar versions.

:thumb: I agree, Rockmom. I know that soft drinks are not healthy but I prefer dealing with the known detrimental effects of refined sugar over the unknown long term effects of chemically-sweetened products. We should not be penalized for making what we believe to be a choice that we believe is the lesser of two evils.

[ladiesbballcoach]

No matter how well intended, taxes take money out of our economy and lower our standard of living. The production of luxuries creates jobs just the same that the production of life's essentials does. Our government has an insatiable appetite for the taxes that allow incumbents to remain incumbents by legally purchasing votes. The more we feed it, the hungrier it gets, and eventually our exploding bureaucracy will crush our way of life.

 

To a point, I disagree.

 

I think it is obvious that the taxes taken out of the economy and put into creating the interstates in this country has risen our standard of living not lowered it.

[rockmom]

:thumb: I agree, Rockmom. I know that soft drinks are not healthy but I prefer dealing with the known detrimental effects of refined sugar over the unknown long term effects of chemically-sweetened products. We should not be penalized for making what we believe to be a choice that we believe is the lesser of two evils.

 

Do you use real butter too?

[Hoot Gibson]

To a point, I disagree.

 

I think it is obvious that the taxes taken out of the economy and put into creating the interstates in this country has risen our standard of living not lowered it.

Most of our interstate system was built decades ago when our tax burden was much lower. Relatively little of the taxes that we pay go into our roads. How many stay at home spouses do you know? How many did you know when you were a kid? Two working parent households were much less common when I was young. In many ways our standard of living has declined already but I am more concerned with what will happen when the bill for today's taxing and spending comes due.

[ladiesbballcoach]

:thumb: I agree, Rockmom. I know that soft drinks are not healthy but I prefer dealing with the known detrimental effects of refined sugar over the unknown long term effects of chemically-sweetened products. We should not be penalized for making what we believe to be a choice that we believe is the lesser of two evils.

 

As a diabetic, though, that is not a good choice for me. I go that route and I will have serious medical issues that you are going to be paying for in the future.

[Hoot Gibson]

Do you use real butter too?

Yes I do. I avoid hydrogenated fats and limit my butter consumption mainly to waffles and corn on the cob.

[Hoot Gibson]

As a diabetic, though, that is not a good choice for me. I go that route and I will have serious medical issues that you are going to be paying for in the future.

Just because it is not a good choice for you does not mean that it is a bad choice for me, nor does it mean that I should be taxed for my choice.